+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Knowledge of and preference for the DOMINO delivery option



Knowledge of and preference for the DOMINO delivery option



Midwifery 13(3): 149-153



To examine women's knowledge of and preference for the DOMINO (Domiciliary In and Out) delivery option in order to explain why uptake is lower than might be expected. Descriptive study using a self completion postal questionnaire. Mid Staffordshire Health Authority (now part of South Staffordshire Health Authority). A systematic random sample of 1568 women aged 16-44 drawn from the Staffordshire Family Health Services Authority register of patients registered with a general practitioner. All women were included, regardless of childbirth experience. Preference and knowledge levels for this delivery option. The response rate was 74%. Thirty-nine per cent had heard of the DOMINO option prior to receiving the questionnaire. Sixteen per cent expressed a preference for this option (95% CI 11.1-21.9). Some women who expressed a preference were excluded owing to high risk factors, giving an adjusted preference of 11% (95% CI 5.2-16.4). Preference was not related to either age, pregnancy experience or previous knowledge. More women expressed a preference for the option than would be expected from examination of national and local uptake figures. Lack of knowledge appears to be an important factor in explaining the low uptake. Purchasers, therefore, need to set contracts reflecting more realistic preferences and ensure that women have information on all options available to them, so that at the beginning of pregnancy women are enabled to make a shared decision on the choice of delivery. Both purchasers and providers need to monitor uptake and levels of knowledge.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 046508383

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 9362856

DOI: 10.1016/s0266-6138(97)90006-1


Related references

Preference regression modeling of multiple option healthcare delivery systems. Journal of Ambulatory Care Marketing 5(1): 71-82, 1992

Outflow reconstruction in domino liver transplantation with interposition of autologous portal vein graft. A new technical option in living donor domino liver transplant scenario. Liver Transplantation 12(8): 1298-1300, 2006

The paired preference test and the 'No Preference' option: was Odesky correct?. Food Quality and Preference 16(5): 425-434, 2005

A new technical option for domino liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation 9(6): 632-633, 2003

Domino liver transplantation as a valuable option. Transplant International 27(4): E27-E28, 2014

Comparison of three bullet recovery systems. Forensic Science International 290: 251-257, 2018

Domino liver transplantation: a practical option in the face of the organ shortage. Progress in Transplantation 13(2): 151-153, 2003

N-heterocyclic carbene catalyzed activation of esters: a new option for asymmetric domino reactions. Angewandte Chemie 53(6): 1485-1487, 2014

Outflow reconstruction with arterial patch in domino liver transplantation: a new technical option. Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases International 13(5): 551-554, 2014

Screening colonoscopy: option or preference?. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 51(5): 624-627, 2000

Preference toward future mode of delivery: how do antepartum preferences and prior delivery experience contribute?. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 28(14): 1673-1678, 2015

Turkish obstetricians' personal preference for mode of delivery and attitude toward cesarean delivery on maternal request. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 284(3): 543-549, 2011

Role of mother's preference for the type of delivery on the outcome of delivery. 2007

Complementary and alternative medicine: personal preference or low cost option?. Ldi Issue Brief 10(4): 1-4, 2004

Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. Journal of Sensory Studies 20(5): 454-468, 2005